Crispin Blunt

I was saying nice things abut Crispin Blunt the other day who, as Prisons Minister, seemed to want to take a different tack from the authoritarianism that went before. Shame his boss didn't agree, but there you go.

Anyway, he's going to be in the news for a couple of days because he's announced the world that he's gay and is splitting from his wife. The personal details are not interesting and I'm not going to dwell on it, these are these his affairs not ours.

Iain Dale writes movingly on the difficulty of pursuing a life in politics as a rural Conservative whilst coming to terms with your sexuality, he also points out that Blunt comes from a military family which may have made coming out all the more difficult. As Darryl showed today homophobia has far from disappeared from society, despite the fact that we have undoubtedly come a long way.

There are some interesting political aspects to this story however. Like Crispin Blunt's own voting record on homosexuality, which is far from happy. Likewise, although he's by no means been the worst bigot in the House, statements on the floor of Parliament like this one during the equalisation of the age of consent debate make difficult reading;

"I believe it right that our law should discriminate in that limited way between homosexual and heterosexual practice... While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people's choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality--nor should we pretend that they are."

The debate continued with Blunt being told "The hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that being gay is a life style choice. It is no more a life style choice than is his sexual orientation." This, of course, takes on new meaning in the light of today's revelations. Blunt replied;

"I am afraid that I cannot accept that. In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person's life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.

"It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues."

Without wishing to be too critical of Blunt in this tricky time I do have a problem with his insistence that homosexual "gratification" is somehow bound up with the exploitation of the young. I don't think that he was confronting a difficult truth here.

But there's more. In 2002 we had this little fracas. When one leading Tory figure, Alan Duncan MP, came out as gay the Conservative grassroots were not entirely happy.

Tony Collinson, chairman of the 1,400-strong Reigate Conservative Association, led the chorus of disapproval.

"I would not be happy if we had a gay candidate here - I would always go for a candidate who had a normal background," he said. "Our current MP [Conservative Crispin Blunt; majority 8,000] is happily married with two children."

This rather backs up what Iain Dale had to say I think. If Blunt had been open about his sexuality he would never have been permitted to play a significant role in Conservative politics.

Particularly when you consider, in the same article, Blunt's fellow Reigate Conservatives are quoted as saying things like being openly gay is "drawing attention to yourself" or "If he's practising then it's unacceptable. If he's non-practising he's made a mistake in bringing it up." or "I come from an older generation where this sort of thing was deemed unspeakable".

No wonder Conservative Home has turned off the comments on this one. As I say Blunt's sexuality is his own business, and I wish him well with his personal problems. The complex politics of the issue, where homophobia still plays a role in British society, well that's something else entirely.

Dave and Nick, sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

David Davis, that well known defender of civil liberties and airfix SAS commando, has dissed the government saying that the Prime Minister and his deputy get on really, really well. Apparently that's a bad thing.

Davis told "businessmen [sic] during a meeting" that the government was a "Brokeback Coalition", which was a term coined, apparently, by Richard Littlejohn. Waaa- Waaa- Waaa ALARM BELLS!

Quite what the Tories have to complain about I'm not sure. In terms of policy they are basically having it all their own way. Perhaps there are less top jobs going round the big table, but they've not had to make any ideological sacrifices in order to remain in government.

I guess Davis is just one of those tribalists who hates to share. Perhaps he's an only child.

I do have a question though. I might be being over sensitive or censorious but am I wrong in thinking that Davis' remarks are homophobic?

There are numerous close male friendships depicted in film - the Blues Brothers seems a particularly apt one in the context for example - but in order to find an example of a bad male friendship, one that's too close, Davis goes straight for the gays.

Butch and Sundance, good, Starsky and Hutch, good, Bill and Ted, good, Brokeback Mountain, bad. Why's that then?

Like I say I'm careful of reading too much into this and don't want to get all up in his shit, he obviously would not like that, but I'm right aren't I? He is basically saying calling someone gay is an alternative way of saying they're crap isn't he? Anyway, he obviously longs for the days when the two most powerful men in government hated each others guts. Good times Davis, good times...

Pic credit Lakelander.

Guest Post: Shot by both sides

In the next of my series of guest posts Charlotte Dingle, chief young person for the Greens, looks at whether there's homophobia in the gay community.

Greedy, untrustworthy, confused, lying, slutty, cowardly. I’ve been called all these things over the years, simply for being honest about the fact that my desire isn’t limited to one gender.

In a world which is slowly but surely getting its head round homosexuality, bisexuality seems to be the last taboo. People who would think twice before making a derogatory comment about a gay person still think it’s perfectly acceptable to suggest that bisexuals are great big sluts, unable to commit to monogamous relationships. As a bisexual woman, I have lost count of the number of times men have asked me for threesomes… or the times I’ve had both women and men say they’d never even consider dating me in case my desire for a ‘bit of the other’ got the better of me.

Bizarrely, the most prejudice I’ve encountered has been on the gay scene. It’s seen as some kind of betrayal, I think, that I’d dare run off and do the hetero thing at the same time as claiming my place in the gay community. They think I want the best of both worlds – in reality I am getting the worst, with hostility from both sides. The ‘B’ in LGBT often feels like it was added as an afterthought (well, actually, it was).

I grew up in a very liberal household, but even there I was taught that being bisexual wasn’t really the ideal way to be. I’ll never forget my Dad calling bisexuals “exotic”, as if it were some kind of decadent and affected behaviour… Oh, and my Mum calling them “sad” (in a melancholy sense, that is). Thankfully, both have (I hope) revised these opinions since I’ve grown up and tried to help them understand what bisexuality really means.

Then there are the folks who think bisexuals don’t exist. I’ve tied my brain in knots in the past, trying to work out if perhaps I am actually either gay or straight… and sometimes I’ve convinced myself for a while that I am one or the other, before someone cute comes along and blows my theory out of the water. The bottom line is, I have liberal friends and a liberal family and I work as editor of a magazine for lesbian and bisexual women. If someone was going to be too scared to admit they were a lesbian, it certainly wouldn’t be me. I certainly don’t date men in order to feel part of mainstream heterosexual society – I have no problem with walking down the road hand-in-hand with a woman.

Bisexuality falls along a spectrum, this much is true. I know there are girls who kiss their mates to turn their boyfriends on – and they like it just as much as Katy Perry did. I defend to the death their right to do this, but the fact is, they don’t account for all of us.

Anyway, if you’re waiting for me to ‘make my mind up’, you’ll be waiting a long time.

Democrats take a knock at the polls

A year ago today the American people came out in unprecedented numbers to elected a liberal President who was on record as opposing the Iraq war, in favour of equal rights for gays and who actually thought that the climate was changing and this had something to do with us humans.

This contrasts somewhat with election results out today that show Americans in Maine, New Jersey, New York and Virginia had begun to shift back to the right. However, all is not lost.

Maine: set back for equal rights

Voters in Maine overturned the state's newly written gay marriage law by 52.75% to 47.25%. When the state legislature brought in the right for gay people to marry earlier this year it sparked a reactionary, well, reaction led by the Catholic Church who petitioned for a referendum on the issue before it could be implemented.

Although this defeat is extremely disappointing we should note how close the vote actually was and I wonder if we had such a referendum in London, for example, would over 47% of people vote in favour of gay marriage? We should also note that voters in Maine also chose to expand the medicinal uses of Marijuana on the same night, so there is still hope for them.

Incidentally, in Washington State voters were asked to approve same sex civil unions (essentially everything up to, but not including, the word marriage) which it seems that they have done.

New Jersey: Republican takes safe Democrat governorship

The biggest blow of the night for the Democrats was the loss of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, in what should have been an easy contest. However, he was a candidate mired in scandal and who was widely seen as mishandling the economic crisis even while promising the moon.

We should also note that his victorious Republican rival is a state prosecutor who'd made his name locking up politicians, you can see why people liked him!

Virginia: Republican take governorship

It was the battle of the right wingers in Virginia where the "pro-life, pro-family" Republican candidate beat his anti-health care reform Democratic rival. A fair few lazy journalists have been discussing this result as a rejection of Obama but seeing as he wasn't on the ballot paper and the Democratic candidate disagreed with the prez on most major issues of the day we enlightened few shall exercise a little more caution.

New York: the right comfortably win Mayoralty

Republican-leaning independent Mike Bloomberg was re-elected as Mayor of New York defeating his rivals handily. The election campaign came at a reputed cost of $100 million for Bloomberg compared to a measly $8 million spend from the Democrat camp so I'm left wondering why he didn't do even better.

The news is not all bad though. In New York the Republicans managed to lose a safe congressional seat through that time honoured election losing technique of having a civil war. The Republican Dede Scozzafava was a moderate, pro-choice candidate who so offended the right by her refusal to be barmy that titans like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck waded in to hound her and support a mad dog rival candidate.

So vile were the attacks that Scozzafava took the late decision to stand down from the race and endorse the Democrats who then managed to take the previously unassailable right wing stronghold.

Can we draw conclusions?

While the results were certainly bad for the Democrats last night they were just a snap shot of the electorate in very specific areas - massively influenced by local events. The voting out of scandal ridden or anti-reform Democrats can't just be laid at the door of Obama's record in office but is very much about the fact that these were very weak candidates that were completely unable to mobilise left of centre voters.

I think the results show two main things. Firstly that the Republican right exists and is on the offensive. Secondly that where they overplay their hand they split their own side and lose the fight. We can see this happening in the health care debate where all their talk of death panels and equating Obama with Hitler has actually driven many moderate Republicans into the Democrat's camp - literally in the case of Dede Scozzafava.

It seems to me that if the Democrats want to keep winning elections they need to stick to a radical and principled agenda whilst leaving the door open to the more moderate supporters of the Republican cause. Most Republicans are not Glenn Beck style foaming ideologues and can be won be over - but ironically not by those Democrats who are indistinguishable from the Republicans, and there are many of them.

Destination Doncaster: help it regain its pride

The good news is that Doncaster Pride has won a concession from the newly elected English Democrat Mayor not to cut the funding for this year's event.

Peter Davies was a surprise winner in the recent elections but perhaps it was really Radio Sheffield's night as he went on to give the most hilariously appalling interview in political history.

The Doncaster Mayoral elections are conducted in the same way as those in London with voters giving first and second preferences. The first preferences were as follows;

Mick Maye (Independent) 17150
Peter Davies (English Democrats) 16961
Sandra Holland (Labour) 16549
Jonathan Wood (Conservative) 12198
Dave Owen (BNP) 8175
Stuart Exelby (Community Group) 2152
Michael Felse (Independent) 2051

Mick Maye, who is on his third failed attempt at becoming Mayor, then lost 25,344 votes to 24,990 once second preferences had been counted. I think it's fair to say that it may well have been BNP transfers that won it for Davies. It's also interesting to note that just 420 more votes for Labour and Doncaster would have remained well and truly off the political map.

Whilst it's difficult for those of us on the left to impact events in places that we do not live in it does occur to me that there is something we can do for Doncaster and that's support Doncaster Pride on August 16th as it has a fight for survival.

Supporting an event that celebrates diversity and making it a really successful day could be a real contribution to making Doncaster a better place.

Journalist jailed for writing about homosexuality

Iraq is of course a beacon of democracy and happiness these days where children smile all day long and the women do nothing but attend seminars to discuss the writings of Germaine Greer. Sadly all is not well in this garden paradise though.

Adel Hussein, a journalist in northern Iraq, has just been fined and sentanced to six months in jail for "violating public decency" by writing about homosexuality.

Adel's editor, Kamal Raouf, said "What was written by the detained journalist was a scientific article and it was not aimed at encouraging homosexuality... The article showed the positive and the negative aspects of homosexuality, but the court looked into one angle and it considered the subject as unethical... Sex education articles should not be judged according to the standards of public decency".

Reporters Without Borders said in a statement "We are astonished to learn that a press case has been tried under the criminal code. What was the point of adopting - and then liberalizing - a press code in the Kurdistan region if people who contribute to the news media are still be tried under more repressive laws". Well, quite.

Unfortunately in Iraq it isn't just illegal to talk about the existance of homosexuality, being gay can bring a death sentence as the blog Iraqi LGBT makes clear, as does this nine minute youtube video which tells some of the stories of being gay in Iraq.

History still holds its power to offend

Curious, there are a number of interesting stories abound about how distant historical figures still play some part in modern politics. Take this row in Florence over the poet Dante, a man who died around seven hundred years ago.

As I understand it Dante supported the Guelfi Bianchi who wanted to see more political autonomy (for Florence) from the Catholic Church. Dante's high profile and active support for this group found him exiled from the city with all his assets seized by his enemies.

Later, when the city changed hands he was offered the right of return if he submit to a public penance - he refused, after all what had he done? Hold political views supporting one section of the ruling elite who happened to lose their struggle. So instead he was sentenced to be burned at the stake but remained in exile and died of natural causes.

All very interesting I'm sure you'll agree but it was a while back so why bring it up now? Well, the official edicts against this vile Guelfi Bianchi still hold. Two city councillors put forward a motion to "rehabilitate" Dante and award him the Golden Florin (which I'm told is a high honour). The motion passed but there is a vocal minority who less than impressed with the scheme.

Dante's direct descendant Count Pieralvise Serego Alighieri has refused to attend the ceremony because of "petty polemics" by those who oppose the decision. He says he'll accept nothing less than unanimity on the decision that his ancestor did nothing wrong.

"My heart sank when I read certain remarks from the Communist and Green councillors who voted against the motion. One argued that the event should be used to celebrate all the political exiles all over the world as well as immigrants and the power of their ideas against dictatorial regimes.

''Another said the whole thing was just a publicity stunt, another said the Florin should also be awarded to (witch-hunting monk Girolamo) Savanarola, and another said Dante's heirs didn't deserve to be called Alighieri,''

In fact whilst you'd have thought there wouldn't be much problem in lifting a seven hundred year old conviction the motion passed by just one vote in the council chamber. It's seems that even old issues that seem to have been resolved years ago still hold the power to create real ripples.

My other example is of William of Orange, who I was surprised to hear was a renowned homosexual.

One Peter Tatchell, for it is he, is off to the North of Ireland to... well... annoy unionists frankly. Those who adore the Orange but hate a selected range of Biblical sins.

I can't help but think this may have been provoked by the way that leading members of the DUP have been getting on their high white horse about homosexuality over recent months. If they will keep poking the beehive (this is not a euphemism but rather a metaphor) they must expect to get a little stung.

Their reaction could probably be summed up best as "Most visitors to loyalist areas will have seen images of King Billy on horseback - have you ever seen one of him riding side saddle? No - so get to fuck you fenian bastard".

Tatchell's commendable and informative wheeze is actually part of Belfast's week long Pride celebrations. I think the man himself sums it up best when he says "It is particularly hypocritical for unionist politicians to play the homophobic card when their hero, William of Orange, had male lovers."

EDM: Mehdi Kazemi and the treatment of homosexuality in Iran

I've just written to my MP, David Howarth, asking him to sponsor the following Early Day Motion. You might like to do the same with your local MP.

Sponsored by Abbott, Diane

That this House is concerned by the case of Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi who is currently living in Holland; notes reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was forced by Iranian authorities to denounce other gay men, including Mr Kazemi himself; is appalled at reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was then hanged for the offence of homosexuality; believes that Mr Kazemi's life is in serious danger if he were returned to Iran; further notes that the Dutch authorities have rejected Mr Kazemi's appeal for asylum in Holland and are likely to deport him to the UK; believes that the Home Office view that Iran is safe for homosexuals as long as they hide their sexuality is contrary to human rights standards on sexual freedom; and calls on the Government to uphold its asserted position as a supporter of human rights by refraining from sending Mr Kazemi back to Iran and near-certain human rights abuses.

EDM 1180

Hat tip Janine

George Galloway, a Byron for our times

I learned today that Shelley once said of George Byron that "Lord Byron is an exceedingly interesting person, and, as such, is it not to be regretted that he is a slave to the vilest and most vulgar prejudices, and as mad as a hatter?" Such is my relationship with George Galloway. He is someone I have a great admiration for, despite the fact that there are a number of issues where we, frankly, have some disagreements.

Both Georges are/were charismatic and courageous fighters against injustice and have been willing to jeopardise their reputations in their implacable opposition to imperialism. Both Georges have been lambasted by the great and the good, denounced for their political and moral perversity and attacked by friend and foe alike in the course of their careers. Both were characters of great verbal dexterity and charm coupled with a fearsome reputation, making some blanch at the thought of crossing swords with them.

Of course there are differences too. Byron was from noble stock, Galloway more humble origins, Byron had an infamously voracious sexual appetite encompassing, shall we say, an eclectic taste - whilst Galloway is a studiously religious man and is therefore, no doubt, quite, quite chaste. Also when Byron died the various parts of his anatomy went separate ways, whilst I hope that Galloway will not suffer such an ignominious fate far in future when his time comes.

However, although I admire Galloway there is one current issue with which I feel obliged to publicly disagree. This business of Peter Tatchell "giving the khaki war machine a tinge of pink" in his campaign to support Mehdi Kazemi, an Iranian asylum seeker, from being sent back to Iran where he fears he will suffer at the hands of the state for his sexual orientation.

Mr Galloway is no loud mouthed homophobe to be sure. Whatever his private thoughts on these matters his record on gay rights is perfectly reasonable and he has gay associates with whom he clearly has a good working relationship. He also has some very homophobic friends - but that is their problem, not his.

On the Kazemi case though he has allowed his position against the Western war machine to distort his judgement. Like the rest of the uppermost clique of the Stop the War Coalition he feels it is better to never criticise the Iranian regime lest it play into the hands of those who wish to bomb it. That's a position I disagree with with, but I don't intend to rehash those arguments here. If you want them I refer my honourable readers to the post I made earlier.

However, on the specifics of this case Galloway has gone over the edge of that policy and parroted the Iranian regime's line that Kazemi's boyfriend was executed for "sex crimes" and that Kazemi himself would be in no danger were he to be returned to his homeland. This flies in the face of the facts and is designed to undermine a man's fight to save his own life.

As the Independent's Pandora says "Tatchell accuses Galloway of "mouthing the propaganda of the homophobic dictatorship in Tehran", after the Respect MP claimed on Matthew Wright's Channel 5 talk show that Kazemi's boyfriend was executed in Iran for "committing sex crimes against young men"."

"George was asked to provide evidence for his claim that Mehdi Kazemi's boyfriend was hanged for sex crimes against young men. He has failed to do so. Moreover he has failed to apologise or withdraw the allegation."

More than that, on the anti-war demonstration on Saturday he repeated them. I couldn't hear what he said because he chose to deliver his speech in the style of an enraged bison bellowing to its herd across the valley (we're right in front of you George) but it's clear he still believes that those who defend this boy are in favour of bombing his family and friends back home.

Doesn't all this rather ignore a key salient fact? Peter Tatchell opposes the war (and Kazemi being sent to Iran), the British Government who are most likely to take part in an invasion of Iran, should one occur, are FOR sending Kazemi back. Galloway is defending the British government's decision to send this young man away from our shores, and it is Tatchell who stands firm against our government's reactionary asylum policies.

It seems an odd way to bolster the British government's case by opposing their reactionary policies. And it seems an odd way to oppose the racist war machine by defending its ability to throw out those foreigners it objects to.

If you'd like to read Seyed Mehdi Kazemi's own statement about his case here's the link, and if you'd like to support his campaign you may like to try Gays Without Borders.

12 reasons why same sex marriage will ruin society

I don't normally cut and paste posts - but it's late and I think these observations from the US are cute (from)

12 reasons same-sex marriage will ruin society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Wiseman fit to judge?

Flicking through the Dayton Daily News is not my usual habit, but this story certainly did catch my eye.

Judge James D. Piergies has said that fellow Judge Mary Wiseman, Ohio's first openly gay judge, "should excuse herself from cases involving the state constitutional ban on gay marriage and Dayton's new law banning discrimination against gays".

He first claimed that this was because she was gay, later he changed this to the fact that she agreed with the law opposing homophobia, and therefore was not fit to rule on these cases. Piergies later went on to say that a black judge who had been a campaigner for civil rights should not have presided over cases of racial discrimination. The News asked Piergies to elaborate but he "said he hadn't really given the issue a lot of thought."

You do not say.